Editorial: AB 32 is too heavy for state to pull alone

For decades California has led the nation in protecting the environment, a philosophy that has brought both tremendous public benefits and real burdens.

Our state retains remarkable swaths of protected wilderness and pristine beaches even as its population has swelled near 40 million. Government makes decisions not just with short-term expedience in mind but also must consider the long-term public health. Our air and water are far cleaner than they’d be without tight state regulations.

But none of that comes cheap. The state has an absolutely stifling business climate, notorious around the nation for a multilayered bureaucracy that puts a drag on growth. Building almost anything in the Golden State takes twice as long and costs twice as much as elsewhere — if indeed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act doesn’t lead to death by litigation. It’s one major reason why the state is a vibrant center of technological innovation yet struggles to retain middle-class jobs.

So there are pros and cons to leading. But what if you lead and nobody follows?

In 2006, the Legislature passed and the governor signed a ground-breaking piece of legislation, Assembly Bill 32, that committed to reducing the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — a 30 percent cut from the expected status quo.

In the long run, it is vital for the nation, indeed the world, to address climate change. The almost imperceptibly slow but real warming that most scientists agree is occurring will, over time, create unpredictable but potentially devastating problems for future generations. Humanity really does need to develop new energy sources, new ways of running our industries and transporting ourselves and our stuff.

But California cannot do it alone. Even if we achieved AB 32’s goals, our one state’s contribution to global warming is of trifling significance. Cutting our emissions while China and India’s 2 billion residents belatedly join the industrial age — with all the carbon dioxide that implies — will do diddly for the planet.

The costs might be worth it in the long run if we could afford it. Hey, we’re California — we’re rich and we lead the way, right? Well, not with unemployment over 12 percent and the state suffering through its worst economic slowdown since the Great Depression. There’s a time to charge ahead, and there’s a time to regroup, treat the wounded, and wait for reinforcements.

Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until the unemployment rate falls below 5.5 percent for a full year. Supporters of continuing the campaign against greenhouse gases argue that’s an extreme rarity, but the state enjoyed just such a robust economy back in the optimistic time when AB 32 passed just four years ago — and during the technology boom in the late 1990s and early this decade.

California can bounce back, if it lets itself. But if its already-ailing economy also struggles to pull the weight — again, largely on its own among states — of fighting global warming, we might never see that rebound in jobs. The fact is AB 32 has real costs. Not least, it will inevitably raise the prices of energy and transportation, staples of modern life whose higher costs will ripple through the economy.

If Proposition 23 passes, it will not stop all progress toward fighting climate change or generally improving the environment. Independent analyses note that many California laws aside from AB 32 aim at the same target. The state will still continue to push toward greater reliance on renewable energy sources and encourage more efficient cars, appliances, buildings and land-use patterns.

But suspending AB 32 will give the state time to slow down and recuperate, let technology develop and other states and nations catch up with our goals.

Looking at the law and our economy today, California is simply too far ahead of the mainstream in its goals without the resources to accomplish the task. And that makes Proposition 23 the right move at the right time.